Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Taven Jaquin Glasgow

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant seeking review of the revocation of hsi probation.



In or around 2010, Glasgow sexually abused his two minor half-brothers. The victims reported the abuse in 2012. The Commonwealth charged Glasgow with two counts each of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful contact or communication with a minor, incest, indecent assault, and corruption of minors. On April 18, 2016, Glasgow entered a no contest plea. The trial court sentenced Glasgow to an aggregate term of one to two years of incarceration, followed by ten years of probation.



While on probation, the Commonwealth charged Glasgow with, inter alia, aggravated assault, possession of a firearm prohibited, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. These charges stemmed from a search conducted after probation officers received a tip that he was in violation of the terms of his probation. The search occurred on June 7, 2021, during which officers found a 9 mm handgun and 56 grams of crack cocaine. While officers were attempting to take Glasgow into custody, he struck and choked one of them. Glasgow pleaded guilty to the charges, and the trial court sentenced him to three to ten years of incarceration.



he imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal. An abuse of discretion is more than an error in judgment - a sentencing court has not abused its discretion unless the record discloses that the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will. Starr, 234 A.3d at 760-61 (citation omitted).



* * *



Legal issue Did the trial court fail to provide sufficient reasons on the record for the sentence imposed after revocation of probation, thus constituting an abuse of discretion?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. PROBATION VIOLATION AND RESENTENCING. The case involves an appeal challenging the discretionary aspects of a sentence following the revocation of probation, where the appellant argues that the trial court erred by not providing adequate reasons on the record for the imposed sentence and that the probationary period was excessive given his rehabilitative needs.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. COMPLIANCE WITH SENTENCING REQUIREMENTS. The court had to determine whether the trial court complied with statutory and procedural requirements by failing to state reasons for the imposed sentence during a revocation hearing, which is essential for the sentence to be upheld on appeal.

Key Phrases Discretionary aspects of sentencing. Revocation of probation. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Presentence investigation report. Resentencing hearing.

Vacated and remanded.